Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Manjushree Mohapatra And Another

Sl. No,Heads,Calculation

(i),"Monthly income after deduction of professional tax and

Income tax","Rs.55,572/-

(ii),Annual income of the deceased.,"Rs.6,66,764/-

(iii),50% of (ii) above to be added as future prospective.,"Rs .6,66,764/- + Rs.3,33,382/-

                   =

Rs.10,00,146/-

(iv),"50% of (iii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased

per annum.","Rs.10,00,146.00 â€" Rs.5,00,073.00

 = Rs.5,00,073/-

(v),"Annual contribution to family after 50% addition as future

prospects and 50% deduction as personal expenses.","Rs.5,00,073/-

(vi),Compensation after application of multiplier 16.,"Rs.5,00,073/- X 16 = Rs.80,01,168/-

(vii),"Addition of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.","Rs.80,01,168/- + Rs.15,000/-

= Rs.80,16,168/-

(viii),"Addition of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses of the

deceased.","Rs.80,16,168/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.80,31,168/-

and died in a motor vehicle accident. The same has been set at rest by a Constitution Bench of the apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi,",,

(2017) 16 SCC 680. The apex Court held:,,

“59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras",,

30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.,,

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.,,

59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.,,

Â,,

xxx                                     xxx,,

                                   xxx,,

 (Emphasis laid),,

Â,,

An identical matter came up for consideration before the apex Court in the case of Nagar Mal. In the said case, the deceased was a bachelor. A contention was",,

raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the multiplier to be adopted should have been based on the age of the deceased and not on the age,,

of the parents. The contention was repelled. Taking a cue from Pranay Sethi, the apex Court held:",,

“7. However, we find merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier and erred in",,

not granting the benefit of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased and the loss of dependency. Having due regard to the judgment delivered by,,

the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 13 Scale 12 : 2017 (4) TAC 673 and in Sarla Verma v Delhi",,

Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (2) TAC 677, the correct multiplier should be 17 having regard to the age of the deceased.",,

Â,,

xxx                                     xxx,,

                                   xxx,,

(Emphasis laid),,

Â,,

xxx                                     xxx,,

                                   xxx,,

Â,,

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi & Nagar Mal, the irresistible conclusion is that when a bachelor died in",,

a motor vehicle accident, his age shall be taken into account while applying multiplier.â€​",,

Â,,

The deceased was the Manager in the State Bank of India. His salary slips for the months of October, November and December, 2016 were",,

exhibited as Ext.10. Learned Tribunal deducted the income tax and other taxes from the same and calculated the monthly salary for the purpose of,,

computation of compensation. There is no material on record as to whether the deceased was getting perk every month. In view of the same, learned",,

Tribunal is justified in not adding the same towards the monthly income.,,

But then, the learned Tribunal committed a patent error in not awarding any amount towards filial consortium. In Magma General Insurance Co.",,

Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (SC), the apex Court went in-depth into the matter and held that parental",,

consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance",,

and training.â€​,,

Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child,,

causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.,,

Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.",,

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have,,

cognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child.,,

Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the,,

parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. In the said case, Rs.80,000/- was awarded",,

towards filial consortium to the parents.,,

Thus the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium. So calculated, the compensation comes to Rs.81,11,168/-.",,

In Jasbir Kaur and others (supra), the apex Court held that it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the",,

victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be “just†and it cannot be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to,,

weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. It further held that the expression “just†denotes",,

equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrary. There is no quarrel over the proposition of law.",,

In K.S.R.T.C. (supra), the apex Court held that the multiplier-method logically sound and legally well-established.",,

In U.P.S.R.T.C. and others (supra), the apex Court held that the calculation of compensation and the schedule appended thereto for calculation of",,

compensation suffers from several defects. The multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor.,,

In Bijay Kumar Dugar (supra), the apex Court taken into account the age of the parents. The same view was taken in Smt. Shanti Pathak and",,

others (supra).,,

In Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra), the apex Court went in-depth into the matter and held that from the quantum of compensation specified in",,

table, it is possible to infer that a clerical error has crept in the schedule and the ‘multiplier’ figures got wrongly typed. The same was rectified",,

and succinctly stated in column no.4 of paragraph 20 with regard to the application of the multiplier.,,

In Reshma Kumari and others (supra), the age of the deceased was 15 years. The apex Court held that the learned Tribunal shall select the",,

multiplier as indicated in column no.4 of the table as prescribed in Sarala Verma. It further held that the appropriate multiplier should be 15.,,

In Meena and others (SLP No.34648 of 2015), the apex Court held that age of the deceased should not have been taken for the purpose of",,

determining the multiplier.,,

In Amrit Bhanu Shali and others (supra), the deceased was a bachelor. His age was taken into account.",,

In P.S. Somanathan and others (supra), the age of the deceased was taken into account.",,

As held above in paragraph 11, when a bachelor dies, his age shall be taken into account while applying multiplier.",,

For the foregoing reasons, MACA No.570 of 2018 is dismissed. MACA No.640 of 2018 is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be",,

no order as to costs.,,

……………………………….,,